Staged fighting rule not likely to make it past players

by JDunman on Jun 22, 2009 6:19 PM EDT in Fights Comment 15 comments

As we've journeyed through the season with Tales of the Tape, I've heard a lot of feedback on different aspects of fighting. I've watched and commented on all the fights of this season and I've learned a lot from the Pensburgh community who never seem to be able to keep quiet on anything - which is a good thing. So when I found out about the proposed rule for giving a misconduct penalty for a 'staged fight', it shouldn't be surprising that I was not amused.

In a nutshell, this rule would make it a 10 minute penalty to fight right out of the faceoff, or have a staged fight, which is I'm assuming to be one where two guys agree beforehand to drop the gloves. I suppose the unplanned, unexpected type, as demonstrated by Sidney Crosby, would be cool, but none of the type that most of us who spend waaaaay too much time watching for it see.

I, of course, wasn't amused by this, but as it turns out, neither were the players. The five player members on the competition committee have been recommended to vote against it - which will not allow the seven of ten votes needed to pass a new rule. To make their point, a number of ~~goons~~ 'tough guys' were brought in to make the point. And what ~~goon squad~~ enforcer representation would be complete without former Pen Georges Laraque?

"It would turn into a mockery anyway because I would turn to a guy and say, 'OK, we can't fight right now because of the rule, so we'll do six Mississippis and meet in the corner.' It's true, we would make a mockery out of it," said Laraque.

And therein lies the bigger problem with this rule. How do you enforce it? A 10 minute misconduct is a hefty penalty to dish out. Beyond the faceoff fights, what would count as a 'staged fight'? Couldn't the players argue that it was spur of the moment, rather than staged? Would we see a new era of secret nods and hand signals between players to signify the start of a fight? After the six Mississippis, of course.

I understand that fighting in hockey is a controversial topic, but this isn't going to fix it. All this will do is put a grace period between faceoffs and fights, and is that really worth the effort or the potential backlash from the group of players you definitely don't want to be meeting in a back alley?

Poll

Should the staged fighting rule be accepted by the NHL?

Yes, it would help control fighting in the NHL.

29 votes

No - it's a good idea to limit fighting, but it's too vague to be enforced properly.

119 votes

No, fighting in the NHL should be left alone.

362 votes

510 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 15 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Um…I have Fried Chicken’s Hockey Fights website listed among my favorites. I happen to like fights, as long as the whole game doesn’t turn into Wrestlemania on Ice. (And I hate seeing Crosby and Malkin fight because they’re both needed to score goals, or at least attempt it, and neither one is real good at fighting.) Then again, I have always enjoyed a good old-fashioned NASCAR fist fight, too, and wish the drivers would settle things with fists more often than cars like back in the day. Guess it’s the redneck in me. :-)

"Miracles require hard work."--Agent Gibbs, NCIS

by GreenEyedLilo on Jun 22, 2009 6:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I watched an interview with Big Georges earlier today. He talked about this rule and how pathetic it really was (without REALLY coming out and calling it that). I fail to see how this will really prevent anything. I mean, it’s just going to prolong the time before the actual fight starts. Imagine knowing two guys can’t fight within the first 10 minutes? How many times will you catch yourself staring at the clock and counting down to the 10-minute mark in the first? Really what I’m asking is, what difference does it make?

Follow the Penguins on SBN @ Pensburgh.com and twitter.

by FrankD on Jun 22, 2009 6:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yup, agreed, and you know how I feel about fighting. :)

I picked the middle of the three choices.

Pittsburgh Black And Gold -- So new, it still smells like paint!

by JustinM on Jun 23, 2009 8:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know you and I don’t see eye to eye on fights, but even if I was against them, I don’t think this would work out.

Let's go Pens!

by JDunman on Jun 23, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Just think..

…the Talbot/Carcillo fight was a “staged” fight….this was an important event in our road to winning the Cup.

Fighting is part of hockey and nothing needs to be changed with it.

WE ARE.......PENN STATE!

by Nick7 on Jun 22, 2009 9:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

get rid of the 10 minute penalty, keep the 5 min & just give guys nice fines if they get into any fights

by t1mmy10 on Jun 22, 2009 9:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I don’t think anything would really be wrong with a 10 minute misconduct for both fighters….Most “enforcers” only play 3-5 minutes a night anyways.

Like it or not, I’m convinced having a big-time heavyweight like Georges Laraque or Eric Godard dress DOES discourage the amount of post-whistle abuse that guys like Crosby and Malkin have to endure. Personally I recall the Pens skill players having a lot more to deal with before a legit enforcer was acquired in March 2007.

Enforcing is a tough job and not glamorous. I empathize with guys like Brantt Myhres who got cast in a role they didn’t want. (That link is a must read, if you haven’t seen that story).

But the job is the job. It’s a necessary part of the game for brave and rugged men to take. In a 30 team league would competition really be better if skill NHL/AHL tweener players like Chris Minard and Alex Giroux replaced Eric Godard and Donald Brashear respectively? I don’t buy it.

by Hooks Orpik on Jun 22, 2009 10:28 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It was odd watching Eric Godard hoist the cup in Detroit, considering he was a perfect 24 for 24 as a healthy scratch in the playoffs. There’s something incongruous about a guy with such a supposedly important role who doesn’t make it on the ice for a single playoff shift. If players can protect themselves for a playoff run that equals nearly a 1/3 of the regular season games (and more intense to boot), how is an enforcer such a vital role? The only argument I buy is that players will take more message penalties in the regular season because the stakes are not as high, and tough guys serve as a deterent. Unfortunately, it’s usually two enforcers putting on a show, rather than one meting out punishment for a player who crosses the line.

by chicos_pants on Jun 23, 2009 10:38 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The playoffs are definitely a different bag from the regular season, but it takes more than the playoffs to hoist the Cup. Godard did an excellent job in the role he was paid to fill throughout the season, and I think guys like him and Laraque are needed with a team that has star players like Crosby and Malkin.

Let's go Pens!

by JDunman on Jun 23, 2009 1:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

nods I think of enforcers as the ones who allow skill players to do their jobs.

"Miracles require hard work."--Agent Gibbs, NCIS

by GreenEyedLilo on Jun 23, 2009 3:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Godard did perform an excellent job at his role

But his role is kind of ridiculous. It’s a circus show for the fans and has minimal bearing on the ice. Is mostly fightless playoff hockey too dull for you?

Not sure exactly what message is sent. Mess with one of our star players and I’ll throw down with one of your team’s designated fighters to the delight of the crowd. We can go on line after the game and see who rates better at hockeyfights.com

I have no problem with fighting in hockey. It’s just mostly SUCH A FREAKING BORE It’s even weirder that so many enforcers are friends with each other off the ice, like a fraternity of marginal players who get their meal ticket punched at the expense of some needless physical abuse.

by chicos_pants on Jun 23, 2009 5:10 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Refs on "Stage"

“Staged Fighting Penalty” – ranks right up there with “Diving”; er, pardon me, Unsportsman-like whatever.
The yahoos in stripes miss and ignore enough at their discretion now. Why add another judgment to what would be obviously used in a total lack of judgment by season’s end?
You want to stop the “unnecessary” fighting? Start calling things equitably as a ref.

Now if they could just do something about those dang bench clearing brawls…

by John Carter on Jun 23, 2009 8:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The proposed rule is ridiculous, much like the majority of these fights. Teams could just take the Red Wings approach and mostly walk away from stupid provocations — prove your toughnesss by playing physically and within the whistles, rather than pandering to the fans in the name of ‘tradition’

by chicos_pants on Jun 24, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fighting Makes Hockey Great

I can see the argument against fighting in the NHL. It’s the same argument against fighting in ANY sport. But that’s exactly why the NHL should leave fighting the way it is.

All other major sports have strived for “purity”, where the sport is undiluted by non-competitive actions. Hockey is the only “impure” sport remaining, where you can fight another player – an action that has no direct impact on the outcome of the game – and not get suspended for it.

And that is one of the reasons why hockey is so interesting. In that respect, it is unlike any other major sport.

by PaulMorel on Jun 24, 2009 12:03 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I agree with the impurity argument when it’s something like a goalie fight, a bench clearing brawl, or a 6 on 6 man-up matchup where two teams just go at. That’s very different than the staged fight, which is essentially two designated fighters dropping their gloves like trained seals.

by chicos_pants on Jun 26, 2009 11:31 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs